It looks like my opponent is a glutton for punishment. In today's round, I will disprove the notion that "Video games encourage violent behavior."

First, the job of the instigator is to prove that video games encourage violent behavior. My opponent only list one event to suggest this. Keep in mind that during this event, they two boys played a VIOLENT VIDEO GAME.

Now, onto his argument. He suggest that the Columbine massacre was caused due to both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold both being fans of the video game listed as Doom. My opponent is either guilty of ignorance and dishonesty, as this valid assessment points to their psychological problems being caused by other factors: http://www.slate.com... . In fact, the following quote sums up their reasons for committing the school shooting: "These are the rantings of someone with a messianic-grade superiority complex, out to punish the entire human race for its appalling inferiority" (by the way, the specific rantings are listed in the article).

I would like to add that studies performed have actually suggested that video games have an even LESSER effect on the aggression of an individuals than television does: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com...

Finally, given that the video game industry is very beneficial to the entertainment industry, logic suggest there are quite a plethora of individuals who buy and play video games. If that is the case, shouldn't there be far MORE incidences of violent behavior as we've seen with the Columbine catastrophe?

At any rate, my opponent has not provided you with valid evidence that would suggest that video games (not just ones that fall under the violent category) encourage violent behavior. Since the burden of proof belongs to him, the contender automatically wins this debate.

ok the columbine thing as I hear, I thought the "Columbine incident" was cause because these two students were picked on and they heard song from Marilin Manson, which in fact his song promotes all these negative things, and his songs was the cause of all this....not the video games.

i'm sure me playing spongebob or even a violent game like Halo 3 is going to make me violent, not!, people's personal decisions make that up, the true problem with the question is gun control and what the students used. I play many violent games, but I'm a very mellow person and I don't even own a gun....bad arguement in a sense you're just stereotyping all teenagers, game player, etc.

"During the Columbine incident, it was two boys who played Doom alot did all the killing." -- They were male, they went bowling, they listened to music, they were bullied, they were teenagers, they were not popular... etc.

You are quite clearly ignorant if you think the suggestion that they played video games before said killings isn't exactly saying post hoc ergo propter hoc. I've taken many courses on logic in both philosophy classes as well as computer science as well as years of debate and interactions with people in a mature manner.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: It happened after therefore it was caused by. It [killings] happened after [video games] therefore it was caused by.

Please refrain from making such ignorant comments in my direction in the future.

I should have known. Afterall, you kids do nothing BUT play video games. My argument doesn't suffer from post hoc. I suggest you take a course on logic before spouting things which YOU THINK you know about.

This debate seems more like a joke than anything else. In the ONE round of this debate, con presented a great refutation of pro's one-liner, though I feel kind of stupid for even treating this like an actual debate. However, if con knew this was going to be one round, he could have made it the shortest debate in this site's history by pointing out that pro's picture proves that video games have nothing to do with instilling sociopathic tendencies in someone and driving them to violence.

Wow! If I lose this debate, I am going to die of laughter. It's just hilarious that I could lose against the kind of argument the pro presented. Not to mention that it is impossible for the pro to address my argument since this is a one round match.